we should probably take a run for the vote so if mr. daniel will be patient with us we will be recessed for probably 10 to 15 minutes. as soon as i am back we will come back into session. [inaudible conversations] >> no rush. we can take a moment to get back into our places. thank you for the interuption. let me turn to mr. daniel with our aprecation and apology for

the interruption. >> thank you. >> is your micrmicrophone? >> i was reminded to turn it on before i started, too. good morning. thank you chairman whitehouse and senator grassley and the members of the judiciary committee for holding this important hearing. my name is elvin daniel. i am a republican, i am an avid hu hunter, a gun owner and i enjoy using by guns for target practice with family and frie s friends. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment and nra i believe. i believe in common sense

sensible gun laws. i am hear today to speak for my sister xena because she is not here to speak for herself. xena loved life. all she wanted to do was be a mother to her two daughters. she loved disney world. rick springfield. and helping other people. as a matter of fact her last moments in this spot she was begging her estranged husband to leave the people alone. she was a beautiful person full of goodness and some good will

come out of her death. on october 21st, 2012 i received a phone call that no one should receive. i was told my sister had been killed. she was killed by her estranged husband. he later learned he had bought the gun through armslist.com. an internet site that doesn't require background check. it hasn't been two years since she was murdered and it it is heart breaking to know our weak

gun laws allow people to buy guns without a background check. she was married for 13 years and eventually left her husband because she abused her physically and mentally. she continued to terrorize her. slashing her tires while at work and threatening her physically. she went to court and obtained a protective order and told the judge your honor i don't want to die. i just don't want to die. under a federal law, this protective order prohibited ratcliff from buying a gun. if he had tried to buy a gun from a licensed dealer he would have been denied. he knew that. so he chose to go through an unlicensed dealer to buy the

gun. he went on armslist.com and posted an ad saying serious buyer looking to buy a gun as asa,p. he found a seller within hours, met at mcdonalds and exchanged the $500 for the gun he used the next morning. this was all after the order was issued against him and entered into the system. >> the next day he walked into where she worked and shot seven people, killed three people,

injured 7 others baton rouge taking his own life. i am convinced he bought the gun from the unlicensed dealer because he knew we could thought pass the background check.

require background checks for all gun sales and keep guns out of that hands of users. i am grateful for the opportunity to share my sisters are with you today. she was a loving mom, a terrific sister for nearly two years now how my family has lived a nightmare. every. mother's day is now a day to survive rather than celebrate because we know that see is not here to watch over girls. she won't be here to take pictures of her youngest daughter dressed up from or congratulate her daughter's on their wedding day. those moments will be happy and sad at the same time.

and i am committed to honor memory by working to reduce the number of women who are killed by preventable and senseless gun violence. you have the power to pass the laws that we need to keep our sisters and mothers and daughters safe. and so i am here today to ask you to remember. when you think about taking action on this issue. thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak today. i'd be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. daniel. you have very well and very powerfully represented your sister today in this hearing room. as the chairman i am going to be here until the end, so i will

reserve my questions and allow my colleagues to proceed ahead of me and recognize first my friend, the distinguished senator from minnesota. >> thank you very much from. thank you to all of the witnesses and particularly mr. mr. daniel. thank you so much. i where your sister's bracelet that you gave me today with pride. she won't be forgotten. and i think one of the things that is most powerful about your testimony is the fact that you are a hunter, gun owner, a member of the nra. could you talk a little bit about how you reconcile that which has been an issue for our colleagues, those of us the support huntington with the fact that we are simply looking at some common sense rules here. for instance, making sure that we include partners on we look at the domestic violence rolls,

making sure we have good background checks and place and looking at making sure that people are convicted of stalking to you want to talk about how you reconcile that? >> your note : it is totally different. during the background check it has nothing to do with infringing on my second amendment. me as a gun owner, i want to make sure that i keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. i don't want criminals or abusers to get their hands on guns, and i think every gun owner should feel the same way as i do. i go through background checks and actually, i feel that everybody should go through background checks, without a doubt. it takes five men's to filiform. in my case in illinois, three

days. usually i get the gun in delicate tissue for two or three weeks until i get my family or whoever. so to me common-sense that we should have background checks on all gun sales. >> thank you very much. thank you for your testimony. my mom was born in wisconsin. i think you'll also are from a state that understands how important hunting as and have identified yourself as a conservative republican. do you want to talk about how you have been able to reconcile that hunting is incredibly, domestic prohibition to.

>> have sworn to protect the wisconsin constitution. so coming from a family of hunters, myself being one, i understand the importance of preserving our second amendment, but the key words here are law abiding citizens. as a law-enforcement officer that is especially high and because we are the ones on the frontline responding to these dangers calls. if you look at the statistics by the fbi and hundred 50 law enforcement officers have lost their lives responding to these types of calls. >> exactly. he want to talk a little bit about what you have seen with just a law enforcement and the cases they you use as an example of the women being bound and put into a freezing garage in the snow and curly would have died

without air intervention and good detective work? can you talk a little bit about how this sort of dating arrangement and the stocking and those kinds of things have evolved in your time has law enforcement? particularly looking at how stocking works. if you're just sending a bunch of e-mails that is not scary to people. and also pursue her overtime the are people that date that can also be victims. >> i certainly can answer that. what i have seen speaking with my fellow sheriff's, we have seen in uprise and individuals to cohabitate together as opposed to being married. the domestic violence, as i mentioned, is just as vicious and just as dangerous. when we look at stocking, looking at some statistics from 2005-2013, the state of wisconsin suffered 29 domestic

violence homicides. with of those 29, all of them were precipitated by a history of stalking behavior. >> very good. and for your law enforcement officers, when most people think about law enforcement officers out there doing their job to my dog actually -- what you think some of the most dangerous calls they get? it would pelvis a robbery. maybe think about john driving. and not sure they would say domestic violence call would endanger an officer's life parisi you want to elaborate on that? >> absolutely. as we mentioned above the statistics of 150 lot force and offices losing their lives, it is a well-known fact to by the police academies the way we treat entrain law-enforcement officials said they taught domestic violence, domestic disturbance calls of the most dangerous.

and but we are hearing into the details about. oftentimes when guns are involved it turns to deadly consequences or violence. >> but the story of officer schneider. showing up. when the department is called, they can't question it. ages show up at the door. >> it is unfortunate. the abuser has told the dispatcher that he will shoot law enforcement. we had won two weeks ago and received and it said he will she ever law enforcement officer. >> to think you for being here today. thank you for your thoughtful words. i do appreciate that, the need to enforce the laws we have on the books.

i also appreciate your understanding that the laws have to be up-to-date. think with the sheriff was pointing of the you understand, a lot of these partners now did involved in these -- violence in the same way that people who are married the willingness to look at that piece of it. dr. campbell, i just want to talk a little bit about the link. you've done a lot of research. the link between the stocking in the violence against women. could you talk of data was your research shown? >> the national case control study comparing women who have been killed with other abused women in mainsails -- the same cities, we have found the vast majority of women who were killed bin stock before and.

even when there was no prior physical violence the majority of ben stopped. we found that of the ones that were abused and then there was a murder after word, it was 87 percent of them were stocked. the ones that were not abused, it was 58%. so clearly it was part of the picture, as was gun ownership. that combination of domestic violence and gun ownership is extremely dangerous. people think just talking means harassing. and when laws are violated commit is when someone has been texas 40 times a day with threatening texas. clearly unwarranted.

and most often, especially with the homicide cases, it was actually following him by doing things like slashing tires it was mentioned in one of the cases, destroying property. it was not just the verbal harassment, not just the e-mails >> because one of the criticisms was that in modern days now people don't always called. they often times text or send e-mails. not that scary if they do it by text message, but you see a lot of that. >> absolutely. and it is threatening. threatening e-mails. >> qualifications. >> absolutely. threatening and unwanted techs and e-mails and continual. >> i think my time is up and read and may come back and a second round.

>> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you to all of our expert panel. i want to mentioned that i am very pleased to be working with my partner from connecticut who has been a real leader in this area. i know he joins me in thanking me jackson family for being here today. let me ask dr. campbell, based on your research, do women take the decision lightly and to seek a temporary restraining order? >> absolutely not. neither do judges in granting them. i've talked with many judges, and when and very carefully consider their options. many go forth temporary protective orders and to not get them. judges are very careful and listening to what evidence is

available around the temporary restraining orders. so they are neither sought nor granted lightly. >> and i believe judge mccaffrey contemporary restraining orders often are not made permanent because when are afraid to appear for the hearing. >> absolutely. that is what we find. oftentimes they are afraid because they have been threatened with a weapon argon. that is the scariest thing for women in terms of the enforcement me and making it that they are less able to actually seek that long-term protective order. we also find that day hearing that goes with the long-term protective order is the time that he will know where she is. and that can be an increased

danger unless we take some protective actions around that. and if she knew that he was not allowed to have a gun she could be less afraid of that access to her at the hearing. >> as you may know, and lori jackson's case there was a temporary restraining order which was going to be made permanent literally the day after she was gunned down. it is that restraining order had resulted in those guns being taken from our estranged husband, believe that she might well be alive today. >> i agree. we just had a case in maryland with a similar kind of incident. and fortunately now in maryland we just passed a bill where we can deny possession of guns to persons who have been -- at a temporary restraining order in

some, but it is not true in all states brigid if it is an issue for many women. >> and laura jackson's case her estranged husband actually traveled to another stable where guns might have been obtained. wouldn't it make sense to have a uniform national rules that take guns away from men or women who are under temporary as well as permanent restraining orders? >> i believe so. >> and let me ask you, based on your expertise whether you agree that a uniform national standard would make sense. and now you are a local law enforcement official, but wouldn't your job be made more effective if there was such a standard? >> absolutely. i think we need to look at why victims seek these protection orders. they do so because they have are reasonable fear for safety. they are not taken lightly.

i can only speak for my community, with the victim's i have spoken to seek these important pieces of paper because they fear whether safety irrespective of a live in a certain county that fear is real >> can you tell me again, dr. campbell or any of the other folks on the panel to know whether the danger to a potential victim increases after she read indicates she is leaving, wants a divorce, the relationship is over. does the danger increase? >> yes. it definitely is according to our study and other research. definitely increases the risk of homicide, especially in the immediate three months and full first year after she leaves and abusive relationship. it does heighten the danger,

which says to us that is the time from when we need to be particularly vigilant, we need to, in order to prevent those homicides and the onus of responsibility should not be on her. many to bring the full bear of the law and implement those laws around the country. >> this panel has been extraordinarily valuable in reinforcing and evidencing, objective facts and research and support of what we know from our experience and from the tragic story. lori jackson's family among them i want to thank all of you for being here today. has given us impetus in this effort to solve this problem, which we will do. thank you very much.

>> i turn now to our distinguished ranking member. >> mr. chairman, before the talks i would like to apologize to mr. daniel for missing his testimony and say that we are sorry for the loss the year talked-about. also, to apologize to everybody here because this is an apology i have done for the third time in the last half-hour. canoe's conference with the senator and then a group of people what i work with very closely. it served way to treat all you folks to come here, but i appreciate your understanding that. my first question is going to be to professor about. our kentucky law took effect this month that allows people received an emergency protective

order in pass our background check to obtain a provisional concealed carry permit. of view this as a law that enables victim's to protect themselves even when the police are not around and when their abusers would not show up in the background check to you support the ability of people who obtain emergency protective orders to quickly obtain a provisional concealed carry permit? >> yes, i do. as the perfect way to help women who feel endangered. we have heard a lot of stories about people who have temporary restraining orders are priced at restraining orders and nonetheless or harmed by the person who was to be restrained. you mentioned list of states that have not been raided makes it much easier for someone who should not get a gun together.

the altar protection as to the individual and. no police department can't protect the to allow women to have a firearm and. absolutely protection. think it's essentially a great idea. >> justice mccaffrey, you have been a police officer. sometimes you're ordered to -- the person subjects of the order of surrender, sometimes you did not so ordered. based on your experience what practical problems to you think would arise if appeals before the committee dressing domestic violence and guns were to be enacted into law. >> senator, first off, let me say that we have these types of laws on the boards of our state. so much of it comes down to enforcement. let me just give you an idea.

dr. campbell pointed out house sometimes it could be tough for a victim. understand something, something that i hope he'll understand. the jurors is there to make sure is a level playing field. whenever the allegations are there are factual, for real, not made up and not getting the system. we have federal orders that constrain the number of prisoners we can put in our county jails. we have state laws now coming down. where will we put these people? will we keep hearing is we have to downplay or downgrade some of the loss so that we don't put people in state custody. our second largest budget item.

we keep getting told that we don't have the space intervenor leon, the average amount of the system, keep them out of the jails and give them the treatment they need so that they can cut down on the need to put people in jail. understand something people one of the things we have to worry about are people that came the system. what time mean by that? right now you have approximately ten to 12,000 custody cases waiting to be adjudicated. that means if you file today their custody case may not be up until april of 2015. think about that. now to us some of the people who know how to gain the system will pick up the phone : 11 the

beginning. if the judge -- it's the job of the judge to make sure that these people are not giving a system. otherwise we have an accused really is doing what they're being accused of. >> this will have to be my last question. requiring criminal background checks as zero s to dating violence abusers and stalkers however only last year an interview, he said, i'm opposed setting any regulation that would require the farmer and to somehow conductance and/or pay for a background check of a neighbor and former tell me one of the soul of fire rather than trying to strip away our constitutional rights i believe

lawmakers need to define private sale and retail sales. more regulation will increase stock purchases. if a criminal is bent on doing evil he or she will simply find a weapon on the streets or solicit a third party to make the weapon purchase who pay in the same interview you oppose limiting magazines and capacities of ten boats are more in an accompanying -- and i completely agree. he said in an interview we must not allow the actions of a few cards who are bent on evil to promote any laws that infringe upon constitutional liberties of responsible, law-abiding citizens. so why do you now say that you are in favor of the universal background check and believe that they would stop criminals from obtaining guns? >> simply put, and you said it

best, law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens. i've always said that i have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens. we have individuals who are bent on evil, but on breaking the laws, but, abusing women. they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. >> thank you very much. thank you all of you. >> thank you very much. what me and ask dr. campbell, somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons that can be used. why is it that guns in particular in create the added

risk of violence that you have chronicled in your work? and in. >> well, for one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes a far more stab wounds, were carefully placed. >> morley to. >> much more lethal. secondly, i have examined the thousands of homicide records in the paris apartment, and many of those cases, it is clear that there may have been a domestic violence incident, maybe someone would have gotten hurt him but no one would die if there was not a gun accessible, way too handy, already there, oftentimes not a gun at anybody went out and bought the day before, although that does happen.

but again that has been in the home, the perpetrator has owned for years. and it was easy to get at, all too available in a moment of extreme vigor. they're for someone died. so those of the two things. >> you talked about the environment of tension in and high emotion and a domestic violence seen. is it as dangerous even to vote a trained, armed law enforcement officer? what does that say about the environment for the victim to a record. >> and naturally, i think we talk about their share of violence and domestic violence calls. the numbers are real. the law enforcement officers that are murdered each year responding to these types of

calls, they are inherently dangerous. we are armed and trained handle situations. where normally stepping in the situations. >> how would you respond to dr. malcolm suggesting that adding yet another fireman to the question would make this a safe from situations for either the victim were officers? >> suggestion that the victim should arm themselves. >> yes. >> i share with you a story of victim's gun was removed from our by the abuser and she was murdered with there own weapon. let me give you a little bit of history. by jill has about 876 prisoners. we birchen ten -- boat and 10,000 citizens. every one of those arrests leaves behind victim's.

typically women and children. every one of those calls, we speak to those victims, get their statements. i've interviewed countless victims of domestic violence. never once of tired of victim tell me that -- where is the nearest town sheriff? >> your professional. let me ask you to questions of constitutional law. the first this, does making sure that people who are lawfully required to have a background checks actually get a background check send any constitutional principle? >> no.

the questions can be intrusive. >> i'm just asking, to the extent there are lawful, having it be enforced abuse second question, where the existing domestic violence laws otherwise restrict gun possession by stalker or abuser, does the difference between a cohabiting victim's and a non cohabiting victim raise any constitutional issues? >> no. >> copay. >> can i add something? >> my time is up. >> i'm sorry. was not here to hear testimony. thank you for being here. from what i need for your

testimony, the key element here was that her former husband had access to done over the internet where he was not subject to any kind of background check. had he been subject to one he might have been caught and stopped from purchasing the weapon. >> said he gone through a federal coalesces dealer he would have been denied access because his record was entered already has an abuser. >> you probably said this with the record, but it bears repeating. as a person who owns guns, a member of the nra, a conservative, are you worried or do you have any concerns over requirements of law that would close the gun show loophole and in fact require that we inquire of all purchasers whether they are in fact prohibited from

purchase because of a conviction or because of the state of mental instability. >> none whatsoever. i believe most gun owners would agree with me. there should be a background checks done. >> i have from downstate illinois part of most families and they would agree with you. >> most of my friends are hunters, nra members. we often speak of this. i have not had a person yet say no and just to me it is common sense. as a gun owner masterly to not want comes to fall into the hands of criminals or abusers. it makes the rest of. >> professor, do you believe that victims of domestic abuse are safer if their abusers are

permitted to carry guns while the subject of a temporary restraining orders to back you have to turn your microphone on. >> i think that to know that that person actually is an abuser, i am assuming it is a he, entitled to have a hearing first. >> as of the issuance of a temporary restraining order suggest in most cases are hearing? >> it does they accuse a person. and the weapons are taken away and then they have a hearing. >> convicted domestic violence perpetrators of a temporary restraining order pending in each of those cases. >> changes so that the -- in

order to protect the woman there is this opportunity to make the allegation. >> there is no question. in some instances the person who is the subject of the order will appear. that is a reality. i've been through that. a situation now where a woman terrorized by her boyfriend or former spouses at his mercy as long as he refuses to come to court? >> no. if he doesn't show up, at least it gives them the opportunity to be heard. that provides enough enchants for the evidence to come out. >> unless the temporary restraining order is issued to protect the woman from a starter , the abuser, the person who is perpetrating called once

that is issued to use to go borrow with the notion that we should at that point take the gun away from that person? >> note. i think once there's been a fair hearing and evidence has been presented then if this person does seem to be really poses a threat that is where. >> over the task dr. campbell what you think about this argument dealing with a woman who has been terrorist or as evidence of abuse to present to the court. >> in order to obtain a temporary order they have to issue the temporary order. the permanent court and long term orders, there's a fuller hearing but that is when

perpetrators have the opportunity to appear to be. >> i have been through this. anyone who has headed domestic practice has gotten the phone call. i am scared of this guy. it does not happen often the first instinct of most persons is protect the person being threatened. argue it out an accord later but first protect the person being threatened. i think that's the premise of this whole discussion. >> and a judge does have to issue that they are concerned with a level playing field in issuing an order. they want to hear evidence before the temporary order. >> i wanted thank you for this hearing and for sponsoring this and card bill which our support in its entirety.

it is said in this day and age. this is one of the few hearings on the subject. it has been over a year since we seriously debated this matter. while gun violence perpetrated by criminals facilitated by straw purchasers, sadly the result of a system which does not protect victims' i hope it will inspire us. >> you have been a leading advocate of the senate in this area for a long time. your home state of eleanor was extraordinarily ably represented on the panel illinois shines today. i turn now to the senator for a second round we have to wake up

before 1:00. >> thank you very much, mr. mr. chairman. i know you wanted to follow-up. wanted to get at this issue. maybe this is what it's about supporter and a co-sponsor. think it's a good idea. put that aside for right now and talk about a permanent restraining orders that are in law, federal law right now. perris restraining orders. do you support that? >> yes. >> if you would extend that to dating partners. this is what i want to get at. a big part of my bill, extending that definition of people who get a restraining orders are get a conviction to be victims. >> i think the full hearing.

>> by nature they're is a full hearing. >> i don't think it should be retroactive to everybody who has ever been convicted. >> the other thing i was thinking about it, and numbers these days on the reduction, on one ticket doctor campbell's few of that. and some of the work we have done here, the work that justice the paschal has done when he was in law enforcement, we have a domestic violence court in minnesota. they've talked about whether we're doing. it has made a difference. we have seen a reduction in those rates. i wonder if you would comment on that and then comment particularly on domestic violence and what we are still seeing in terms of the numbers. >> we are extremely pleased and

i think we should all be proud that the domestic violence homicides have gone down. but clearly from the data they've gone down in part, in great part because of a gun restrictions that were put on known domestic violence offenders and the has been upheld by the supreme court. it's clear that that is where those reductions have come prom. yet we need to do more to reduce the domestic violence homicide by other means, to be proactive, be prepared to. we can continue to reduce the domestic violence homicides with guns if we continue to expand the legislation that allows us. >> look at just refining the law we see that things change. you have a lot of people that

still get involved in domestic violence. you always want to get out there. we reduced crime. but when you are a victim of crime those statistics don't mean anything. it's your sister's killer your child. and so the way i look at this is it's a way to build on some of the work that has been done in the domestic violence field and to understand that we see a changing situation with the population. we have to be sophisticated. that is what this is really about. i just wondered if you could maybe share a comment on a. >> you're looking at -- what is your question? >> the question is about how this situation has changed with trading partners, the need to update and in part because of the internet, some great things,

but just more and more stocking and more and more ways for people to track people down. maybe in the past they could just kind of hide and get a new address or phone number, why we need have a bill like this past. >> and i can tell you from what i have seen to all we are seeing more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses. we have heard this. more women are killed by their abusive boyfriends. that said, and we talk about stocking and how that relates. a hoesch shares statistics we had here. twenty-nine domestic violence homicides of precipitated by history. that behavior, the technology is great. include to the smart phone these days. >> appreciate you have not done about was talking.

>> we're glue to these devices. they can be used to facilitate criminal behavior. i don't know how we would go about regulating the pave year when it comes to technology. >> what i was meeting, the reason we have us talking beer is because we have seen her recent estimate of 27,000 convicted starkers. we have seen because of the new technology there are new ways to find people who execute. >> thank you very much. let me ask, you said earlier that in a budget -- they have to provide a level playing field when an abuse victim requests 80

ro. to you believe that judges to provide that level playing field to they hand out temporary restraining orders casually? >> did we take this very seriously, especially when it comes to victims. in philadelphia in pennsylvania we have been on the leading edge, the cutting edge of protecting women that have gone through these types of dramatizing events. again, as i said earlier, it is far, far more than just handguns it's all domestic violence. and judges to take it seriously. we have up police department now with a directive 90 that makes sure that our police officers fill out a specific form and file on domestic abuse allegations.

the bottom line is it is one of our most -- other than child abuse, special victim's abuse it is one of our most important criminal investigations. so yes. >> dr. malcolm, do you dispute that? >> whether they take it seriously or not? >> well, they take it seriously and they require a showing of fact indicating dangerousness and threat. >> i'm sure that's what they do now. is just the need to people, the person who is being accused. also one person comes in brightener pretended to be frightened. just trying to get to the head of the list. >> i read the testimony. when you see pretended to be frightened.

how much courage it takes, how much strength and resoluteness it takes, not to mention -- >> sometimes embarrassing fact to a complete stranger. >> we also heard from the judges that there are people who game the system. people should be able to protect themselves. they can't really depend on the police to protect and. there is an important case in the district of columbia, 1981, with three roommates -- >> why would a woman game the system to protect herself from the dire and dangerous physical -- >> well, we heard from the judge as this morning the there were all of these long list of cases.

the cancer to the top of the list. that's something i would not have known. >> and aren't there proceedings without the other side represented and many other circumstances where equally important decisions are made such as searching houses, surveiling telephones, putting liens on property? >> if that is the case we don't need to add another one. i don't think that people's homes should be searched for weapons on a mere allegation. they have had no opportunity. and it's dangerous for the police to go in there without this person even having notice. so i think that it does not provide the opportunity for

evidence from both parties. i think that is necessary. i realize it's difficult for women, frightening to make allegations. many never do because there are so frightened. the support network to help these people. but i think that all of that being said, from the evidence that i have seen, half of the accused persons when mary after the hearing. >> there is an opportunity to be heard. >> there is right now. >> and if they're is a temporary restraining order and if the proposal i have made became law there would be an opportunity to be heard within two weeks. >> within two weeks. so immediately they guns did taken away or any other evidence. >> right. [inaudible conversations] >> you know, to me, you know, you are guilty until you put

yourself into something else. your property gets taken away immediately. with all of the danger and later on the get the chance to say something. >> you are opposed to any kind of temporary restraining order? >> not if they're is a hearing at the time. only if it is two or three weeks, some other time later. >> what if the assailant, the abuser is unavailable? >> well, if you will provide the opportunity for that person to come to the hearing, notify that person that there is a hearing in they don't show of then that is their fault, but at least you're providing the opportunity . >> how much notice and time would you give that person? >> i don't know.

>> these are practical realities of trying to protect people. >> i will tell you practical realities. the police cannot be every where all the time. >> when someone represents a threat and the judge as to protect a woman and a woman. >> there are other ways. >> an assailant who has a gun and has indicated that he wants to harm her. i don't know whether you have been in that responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract ideas. their practical, threatening realities. >> they are, but you don't know for sure what the story is. unless both people have an opportunity to be heard. a person as an opportunity before something is done against him. >> just to be clear, you don't

think that the police should be allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for a firearm? >> i think that they can be allowed to, but they need to have a temporary restraining order. there ought to be a hearing before that happens. >> for a search warrant there is not hearing. if you're rule applies to a temporary restraining order the same rule would apply to a search warrant. to quote what i think you said earlier, police should not be allowed to go into someone's house looking for a firearm which is exactly what they do. >> they have to have evidence. [inaudible conversations] when they often go when, more and more violence takes place. >> a higher evidentiary standard for a search warrant and there is for temperatures trending order.

>> i think that for a temporary restraining order under these conditions are you have one person coming in the need to have the other person her before the property is taken away. >> isn't that what happens in a search warrant? if the evidence is credible they execute the search warrant. that happens every day. are you really suggesting that police should not be authorized so do that? >> i am not suggesting they should not be authorized. >> but not a temporary restraining order. >> a temporary restraining order to protect somebody where only that one person has been hurt by the judge. >> that is exactly this circumstance and a search warrant. that is your logic it must apply to search warrants which puts you in a position of saying that search warrant should not be executed by the police. i don't think that makes a lot of sense. >> i don't think it makes a lot of sense to invade someone's

house and take their property without their having had a chance to be heard about it. >> which is precisely what a search warrant does. so obviously he felt thing search warrants are appropriate. if that is your position, then that is your position. >> the think the way that the law now works -- you are changing the way that the lawn now works in these cases. the way the law now works there is an opposition day for people to be heard. he had asked me what if they don't show up, well, that is there problem. at least there is an opportunity to be heard before they're put under a temporary restraining order. that is the issue here. if i can just make one other comment, i also think that with temporary restraining orders all of these issues and now, the potential victim has to depend on the police being able to be there. i think that is a real concern.

this case that i was going to mention where there were women who were abused and the police never can, a fundamental principle of american law they're under no general duty. i think in that case there isn't -- people can't really depend on the police. they need to be able to protect themselves. >> any last words? >> yes, i agree that we cannot be everywhere as law-enforcement the judge could comment we certainly can't be everywhere. we do count and our assistance and encourage them to exercise could due diligence. i would never tell someone they should not arm themselves if they are a law-abiding citizen.

there's nothing wrong with that. the issue we have is those who should not have weapons, those who are convicted domestic violence abusers, those who are stalkers, those who represent a public safety threat to not only victims will law-enforcement. that is what this is about. >> i will a suppressed -- >> if i may just add one quick note. i will supplement it for the record. the notion requires both sides to be heard before there can be a wiretap or surveillance or search warrant, search and seizure. put aside domestic violence would not only undercut but cripple the protection of innocent citizens as the chairman well knows from his experience in the intelligence area.

surveillance is done when one side, when there is sufficient threat. a constitutional system depends on the balance of the exigencies of threats to individual safety or national security as against those constitutional rights that may be temporarily infringed upon. >> as attorney general i actually had to go and get some of those warrants myself. that is one of the restrictions. the exercise of power. the attorney general shall appear in prison. so we are well familiar with that. the hearing will remain open for an additional week. if any one -- i should set the record of the hearing for an additional week.

but i have to say how very grateful i am to the senators for their lead in this area but, how extraordinarily grateful i am to the witnesses for being here, particularly for those who brought personal stories that have had such a dramatic affect on their lives. to those of you in the audience, thank you for your advocacy. to those of you have suffered losses to we are with you. we will not forget it and appreciate what you're doing. a hearing is chaired. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]